Monday, February 19, 2018

Buster Posey is one of the most accomplished catchers in baseball history. At 30 years old, he already has a Hall of Fame resume.

In eight full seasons with the Giants, Posey has won National League Rookie of the Year, NL MVP, four Silver Slugger awards, a Gold Glove, and is a five-time All-Star. While he still has plenty of years left, Posey has naturally thought a bit about what he would like to do once his playing days are done.

But, politics? Well, kind of.

(As always, views expressed in the article lede and comments are the views of the individual commenters and the submitter of the article and do not represent the views of Baseball Think Factory or its owner.)

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

I do have a desire to try to help people and improve peoples’ lives if possible, and it’s very important for my children to see the importance of helping others.

Not a Republican, then.

I don’t know. Posey has already made $79.6 million and is contracted to make over $90 million more. A really rich person can probably do more to improve peoples’ lives with their money than they could as a politician.

Aside from its themes of colonialism and race, Black Panther contains a more general political theme about monarchies. If a ruler is legitimate (e.g., in Wakanda, if he wins a fistfight), do people owe allegiance to him, even if he's a bad guy?

The parallels to Trump are inescapable, even if somewhat misdirected. (A President deserves respect, but not personal allegiance, and I'm not even sure that the office commands allegiance: in the US, the President is Commander-in-Chief but if I'm not in the military, he's just another one of my civilian employees.) But in larger terms, the issue is interesting, particularly for monarchists and other admirers of strong leaders.

The Court's new map splits just 13 counties, instead of the previous 28.

The Philadelphia Inquirer assesses:

Many of the changes seem generally favorable for Democrats. In one win for local Democrats, the fourth district is centered on Montgomery County. Critics of the map adopted in 2011 often pointed to Montgomery County, which was split into five districts in that plan and had no member of congress living in the county. Bucks and Chester Counties also receive districts based largely on their boundaries.

“The Remedial Plan is superior or comparable to all plans submitted by the parties, the intervenors, and amici, by whichever Census-provided definition one employs,” the court wrote in its order. It also wrote that the plan is “superior or comparable” to the various map proposals on the average compactness of districts and that each district in the map has an equal population, plus or minus one person.

Republicans called the Court's unconstitutionality ruling unconstitutional. They violated the court's direct order to supply districting data. They refused to submit a new map until blinking at the last minute, at which point the two Republican Senate and House leaders devised one by themselves, in violation of their legislatures' rules. That led to a flurry of alternate, competing map submissions from Democrats and Republicans alike. Republicans futilely demanded that a judge recuse himself. They're trying to build support for impeachment of the Democratic justices. And they failed to convince the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene. They are now expected to appeal.

On Sunday night, hours before the Court issued the new map, the two Republican heads of the Senate and House wrote to the Supreme Court, complaining that other submitted maps were “deliberately drawn to pack Republican voters into a limited number of uncompetitive districts and to cement a 10-8 Democratic majority.”

Weird how he choose that one key Senator who happened to have an extremely sketchy history which made is super convenient for the DOJ to engage in its witch hunt. I see the parallels, rogues DOJ investigation investigates a politician of the same party as the administration. It engages in a total witch hunt (just ask the guy being investigated) and it so happens there is a ton of unsavory stuff to be uncovered.

Weird how that happened. It does sound familiar, but I can't quite put my finger on what it is similar to. Hmmmm.

By the way, does this mean you are totally on board the conspiracy train, or are you still totally not saying it despite saying it? I have lost track of which way you are leaning.

It's only a ####### contradiction to an obtuse mope living in a lily-white cul-de-sac. I said multiple times it's certainly possible. I've demonstrated multiple times WHY it's possible.

Got it now? NOW?

It's possible that George W. Bush invaded Iraq because he was under orders to do so by aliens. Saying that it's "possible" over and over again while trying to distance yourself from it is trying to have it both ways.

Do you believe that Obama sent the DOJ after Menendez or not? Simple question that you will whatabout or not answer.

Yup. Still nutty. Obama goes after a Senator from his own party, where the "best case" punishment from Obama's perspective is the case goes really fast and Menendez resigns or is removed to be replaced by the choice of a Republican Gov. Of course if it drags out then the punishment happens after Obama has left office giving Obama no gain at all, but at least it has the potential to hurt his party.

All because Obama's fee fees were supposedly hurt by comments made that didn't end up mattering since the Iran deal went through anyway.

Either Obama behaved ridiculously or it is a ridiculous theory. Hmmm. Tough choice.

Quit with the blatant misrepresentations. I never suggested the initial investigation into his activities was politically motivated, only speculated about the decision on whether to indict.

Point of order. Technically you never suggested anything. In fact you pointedly mentioned you were totally not suggesting it. I think what you mean is I misrepresented that thing you totally didn't suggest. But sure, my apologies for misunderstanding what it was you were not suggesting. Sorry.

I think the USA misses out on "head-of-state" at least with presidents in my lifetime. The president is clearly the head of his party and almost always involved in partisan fights (even if low level and he is otherwise respected). I think having a monarch who does little other than personify the nation and who the political leader has to answer to, even if only in a private meeting with little real chance of being called out, is worth something.

Is it worth all the other stuff you get as part of a monarchy? No idea.

A lot of the themes of Black Panther were pretty incredible for an superhero movie and, in my opinion, it was really well done. I'd like to see it again to think a little more. I had avoided spoilers very well (I've been pretty sick and very busy) so was really just expecting a normal Marvel movie. I generally really like Marvel films and a couple have had deeper themes but this one was on another plane. If you're not a Marvel fan, I think Black Panther would stand alone very well.

On Sunday night, hours before the Court issued the new map, the two Republican heads of the Senate and House wrote to the Supreme Court, complaining that other submitted maps were “deliberately drawn to pack Republican voters into a limited number of uncompetitive districts and to cement a 10-8 Democratic majority.”

The current balance is 13-5 Republicans. Trump went 12-6. In the redrawn map, he wins 10-8. Popular vote was Trump 48-47.

That's not bad. Especially with all the talk of Democratic voters 'self-packing' implying that you might have to gerrymander just to get the seat ratio to match the bulk popular vote ratio.

Quit with the blatant misrepresentations. I never suggested the initial investigation into his activities was politically motivated, only speculated about the decision on whether to indict.

Just so everyone is aware, Jason has now expanded his conspiracy nuttery to include Obama targeting Bob Menedez because Menedez didn't fall into party line on the Iran deal. Let that sink in. It literally always comes back to Iran conspiracies at this point. No wonder he's fallen in love with the Birther In Chief.

After my tepidness, I ended up seeing "Black Panther" on Sunday when a free ticket literally landed in my lap. (Colloquially literally, of course.)

It was pretty good. I was more impressed that "the Marvel Universe" has been able to produce entertaining and successful movies so tonally different from one another as "Black Panther," "Deadpool," and the most recent "Captain America," "Spider-Man," and "Guardians of the Galaxy" entries. Meanwhile, DC is stuck in a ditch of repetitive sadness. As bunyon just alluded to, the plotline of "Black Panther" is barely connected to the other Marvel movies, other than a flashback which is purely exposition and not structural. It's really its own thing.

"Respecting the office" to me means you are respecting the nation. In as much as POTUS is head of state, he IS the nation. So, you say "sir" and stand when he stands, etc. But that sir could be at the end of "You're a terrible human being" and the standing could be as much in his way as you can put yourself.

But, like I said above, presidents for my entire life have mostly been heads of party more than heads of state. Reading history, I think that has gotten worse but, at least since Adams, has mostly been the case.

I was more impressed that "the Marvel Universe" has been able to produce entertaining and successful movies so tonally different from one another as "Black Panther," "Deadpool," and the most recent "Captain America," "Spider-Man," and "Guardians of the Galaxy" entries. Meanwhile, DC is stuck in a ditch of repetitive sadness.

To be fair, "Deadpool" was not made as part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. It was made by Fox as part of their rights (at the time) to the "mutant" elements of the Marvel comic book properties. With Disney's recent acquisition of Fox Studios, Marvel once again has control of those characters, including Deadpool and the rest of the "X" family of mutant superheroes, as well as the Fantastic Four characters. But "Deadpool" was made by Fox Studios, as was "Logan," and Marvel Studios really doesn't get the credit for the tonally distinctness of those films. The other three you mention are part of the MCU and are thus to Marvel Studio's credit.

"Respecting the office" to me means you are respecting the nation. In as much as POTUS is head of state, he IS the nation. So, you say "sir" and stand when he stands, etc.

Previously, perhaps. But not with Trump. Trump defiles the office. The office does not lift up Trump. Donald Trump spent the majority of Barack Obama's administrations spreading Birther conspiracy horseshit and peddling in the most vile, racist of lies about the former President. He deserves absolutely no respect. He is human filth, and he should be addressed as "you cockholster #########\" long before you break out the "sir."

I think having a monarch who does little other than personify the nation and who the political leader has to answer to, even if only in a private meeting with little real chance of being called out, is worth something.

Is it worth all the other stuff you get as part of a monarchy? No idea

Many democracies, of course, try to get the best of both systems with a largely ceremonial President. My sense of parliamentary presidents is that they can range from extremely well-respected (Mary Robinson in Ireland, for example, who went on to become UN commissioner on human rights) to folks who are more-or-less placeholders. I've been visiting Germany annually during the last three presidencies and I couldn't tell you who any of them were.

I believe it was only yesterday that some were touting the Democrats prospects in the March 13 Special Election for that PA-18 Congressional seat, but it looks like the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee didn't get the message. Dems Don't Plan To Put More Money Into PA-18.

One thing I liked, just structurally, about Black Panther was that if something happened early in the film it was echoed later on. Sometimes this was small Chekhov's-gun stuff, but more often it was an element of world-building that was important both early and late. That's impressive for a two-hour movie. Recently I re-watched Andy's favorite old long movie, Les Enfants du Paradis, which does the same thing – albeit it's 3+ hours. Les Enfants has held up awfully well for over 70 years now, which we won't know about Black Panther till 2088 or so :)

Americans are beginning to view the new GOP tax law more favorably, according to a poll released Monday by The New York Times and conducted by SurveyMonkey. Fifty-one percent of Americans approve of the tax law now, compared to 46 percent in January and 37 percent in December.

And that's with the effects just beginning to sink in, with many still unaware of how they will benefit:

Overall, 33 percent said they expect a tax cut, while 14 percent said they expect a salary increase and 8 percent said they expect a bonus or an increased bonus. … The poll was conducted among 10,255 adults between Feb. 5 and Feb. 11 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 1.5 percentage points.

The effect might be even greater once folks realize 80% of households will get a tax cut.

Some jerk didn't post that the new thread was up, so I posted this in the old one. Here it is again:

The purported issues related to the FISA warrant application would be impeachment evidence, not exculpatory evidence.)

I must be missing something: How are we certain none of the potential issues pertaining to Flynn's guilty plea relate to exculpatory evidence?

Flynn is charged with lying to the FBI about his conversations with the Russians. The only relevant evidence is (a) what he said to the Russians, and (b) what he told the FBI about those conversations. Flynn knew what he said to the Russians, and knew what he said to the FBI about what he said to the Russians. Knowing those things, he chose to plead guilty. What exculpatory evidence could they possibly have failed to disclose to him?

Why are you focusing on the FISA warrant application of Carter Page?

Because that's what the theory was for why Flynn's prosecution was going to fall apart. Now you're positing something completely unknown and new, based on nothing more than a standing order from Judge Sullivan?

Although the indictment notes that it is illegal for foreign nationals to spend money on U.S. elections or to try to influence elections without registering as foreign agents, that's NOT what the Russians were indicted on.

Of course they weren't; such a thing would be directly contrary to the First Amendment.

No, it wouldn't. The Supreme Court has already ruled that foreign nationals who are not LPRs have no first amendment right to spend money on elections. Bluman v. FEC. That includes both campaign contributions and independent expenditures. And If they don't have any right to make such expenditures, then a fortiori, they don't have any right to do so without registering first.

EDIT: Whoops. I didn't look at whose post I was responding to; I thought it was someone who made an innocent mistake about the law.

(*) Nor is it illegal for a foreign national to provide in-kind services -- even if worth a ton of money -- to an American political candidate. See, e.g., the FEC decision involving Sir Elton John and a big concert he gave for H Clinton.

No, it's illegal. What's not illegal per the FEC is a foreigner providing volunteer services to a campaign, which is what Elton John did. So our Canadian contingent here is free to show up at campaign headquarters and man the phones. Or sing to entertain people. Doesn't mean that they can make in kind contributions, though.

There's not a scintilla of evidence that Trump had anything to do with the wikileaks dumps.

If by 'had anything to do with' you mean actually sent the emails to Wikileaks, then no, there's no evidence. But if you mean 'had involvement,' then there is. Trump and his advisors (including Stone) appeared to have advance knowledge of the timing of Clinton-related Wikileaks releases.

Flynn is charged with lying to the FBI about his conversations with the Russians. The only relevant evidence is (a) what he said to the Russians, and (b) what he told the FBI about those conversations. Flynn knew what he said to the Russians, and knew what he said to the FBI about what he said to the Russians. Knowing those things, he chose to plead guilty. What exculpatory evidence could they possibly have failed to disclose to him?

There are reports saying that Comey and Strzok both thought Flynn had told the truth in the interview. So how did that ultimately turn into a perjury charge?

EDIT:

The FBI interviewers believed Flynn was cooperative and provided truthful answers. Although Flynn didn't remember all of what he talked about, they don't believe he was intentionally misleading them, the officials say.

There's not a scintilla of evidence that Trump had anything to do with the wikileaks dumps.

If by 'had anything to do with' you mean actually sent the emails to Wikileaks, then no, there's no evidence. But if you mean 'had involvement,' then there is. Trump and his advisors (including Stone) appeared to have advance knowledge of the timing of Clinton-related Wikileaks releases.

"Appeared to have?" Oh, is that how it works?

There's not the slightest bit of evidence that they had any involvement.

Not to belabor the obvious, but it implies Comey and Strzok were wrong in their belief, presumably because they had incomplete or wrong information at the time.

Also not to belabor the obvious, but several blokes involved in the investigation are no longer in their current posts (fired, retired (cough), demoted and reassigned, transferred) so let's wait and see.

There are reports saying that Comey and Strzok both thought Flynn had told the truth in the interview. So how did that ultimately turn into a perjury charge?

Well, Comey wasn't there, so that's a bit weird of an argument (and I hadn't heard of him saying that anyway) but that's not what the reports say. What the reports say is that Strzok thought that Flynn didn't intentionally lie. (That is, the misstatements that Flynn made were inadvertent.) It turned into a perjury charge because someone else disagreed about Flynn's mens rea. Possibly it was the other agent there with Strzok during the interview. Possibly Mueller found some emails or something that made it implausible that Flynn's misstatements were innocent. In any case, Flynn, based on the advice of two pretty experienced Covington attorneys, apparently decided that he couldn't win with the "Oops I made a mistake" defense.

Or, of course, Mueller made Flynn an offer he couldn't refuse, allowing him to plead to a 1001 rap that he could have beaten and dropping more serious charges that he couldn't, in exchange for cooperation.

Waiting and seeing is the limit of my actual powers, but sure. But if you think Flynn plead guilty but was really totally innocent, like he's living paycheck to paycheck and has the kind of job that fires you if you miss a day ... well, we won't see what you're imagining.

If by 'had anything to do with' you mean actually sent the emails to Wikileaks, then no, there's no evidence. But if you mean 'had involvement,' then there is. Trump and his advisors (including Stone) appeared to have advance knowledge of the timing of Clinton-related Wikileaks releases.

"Appeared to have?" Oh, is that how it works?

There's not the slightest bit of evidence that they had any involvement.

On October 3, 2016, WikiLeaks wrote again. “Hiya, it’d be great if you guys could comment on/push this story,” WikiLeaks suggested, attaching a quote from then-Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton about wanting to “just drone” WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange.

“Already did that earlier today,” Trump Jr. responded an hour-and-a-half later. “It’s amazing what she can get away with.”

WikiLeaks didn’t respond to that message, but on October 12, 2016, the account again messaged Trump Jr. “Hey Donald, great to see you and your dad talking about our publications,” WikiLeaks wrote. (At a rally on October 10, Donald Trump had proclaimed, “I love WikiLeaks!”)

“Strongly suggest your dad tweets this link if he mentions us,” WikiLeaks went on, pointing Trump Jr. to the link wlsearch.tk, which it said would help Trump’s followers dig through the trove of stolen documents and find stories. “There’s many great stories the press are missing and we’re sure some of your follows [sic] will find it,” WikiLeaks went on. “Btw we just released Podesta Emails Part 4.”

Trump Jr. did not respond to this message. But just 15 minutes after it was sent, as The Wall Street Journal’s Byron Tau pointed out, Donald Trump himself tweeted, “Very little pick-up by the dishonest media of incredible information provided by WikiLeaks. So dishonest! Rigged system!”

Two days later, on October 14, 2016, Trump Jr. tweeted out the link WikiLeaks had provided him. “For those who have the time to read about all the corruption and hypocrisy all the @wikileaks emails are right here: http://wlsearch.tk/,” he wrote.

Or, of course, Mueller made Flynn an offer he couldn't refuse, allowing him to plead to a 1001 rap that he could have beaten and dropping more serious charges that he couldn't, in exchange for cooperation.

I saw Black Panther on Saturday and it's strongest point was the fact that the "villain" was fantastic.
The best movies have the best villains (Die Hard, Star Wars, Silence of the Lambs), and this movie had the best MCU villain (so far).
He had swagger, he was dangerous, he was intelligent, and he had real purpose other than the basic "rule the world".
(Sure, he DID want to rule the world, but it was a secondary effect of his real purpose.)

The MCU seems to do better with lesser properties (Black Panther, Ant-Man, Guardians of the Galaxy) than it's prime ones (Spider-Man : Homecoming being the exception as it was fantastic).

I also thought Wonder Woman was an amazing movie the first 3/4ths of it before that terrible ending.
Of course, she was easily the best part of Justice League and they knew that by adding more scenes for her in the reshoots.

But if you think Flynn plead guilty but was really totally innocent, like he's living paycheck to paycheck and has the kind of job that fires you if you miss a day ... well, we won't see what you're imagining.

Which part of "let's wait and see" do we not understand? I wonder about the Contreras recusal and subsequent sentencing delay but don't claim to have inside info.

But yeah, one of the reasons why I think it's batshit crazy for anyone who's not independently wealthy to take a senior job in any administration is the mindblowing cost of defending one's self against a federal prosecutor with essentially unlimited resources -- even if he/she thinks they're innocent.

Mueller's interest in Kushner grows to include foreign financing efforts

Special counsel Robert Mueller's interest in Jared Kushner has expanded beyond his contacts with Russia and now includes his efforts to secure financing for his company from foreign investors during the presidential transition, according to people familiar with the inquiry. This is the first indication that Mueller is exploring Kushner's discussions with potential non-Russian foreign investors, including in China.

...Mueller's investigators have been asking questions, including during interviews in January and February, about Kushner's conversations during the transition to shore up financing for 666 Fifth Avenue, a Kushner Companies-backed New York City office building reeling from financial troubles, according to people familiar with the special counsel investigation.

It's not clear what's behind Mueller's specific interest in the financing discussions. Mueller's team has not contacted Kushner Companies for information or requested interviews with its executives, according to a person familiar with the matter.

The article says that Mueller's team was been questioning people about Kushner's negotiations with investors from China (Anbang's Wu Xiaohui) and Qatar (former prime minister Hamad bin Jassim Al Thani), as well as Kushner's meeting with Russia's Sergey Gorkov of Vnesheconombank. Kushner testified to Congress that he'd met with Gorkov for government purposes, but Gorkov's bank says it was a business meeting with Kushner.

But yeah, one of the reasons why I think it's batshit crazy for anyone who's not independently wealthy to take a senior job in any administration is the mindblowing cost of defending one's self against a federal prosecutor with essentially unlimited resources -- even if he/she thinks they're innocent.

Somehow I get the feeling that most of us here, even the Trump Toadies, would be able to survive 8 years in a job like that without being put under indictment.

It seems he lied to the FBI about his conversations and then plead guilty to it. That's the simplest - and sanest - explanation. Which is not to say that something untoward didn't happen here.

To my eye:

1. Yates and the FBI threatened him with the ridiculous Logan Act.

2. He tried to talk his way out of it with no attorney present.

3. In so doing he told material lies about his perfectly legal discussions.

4. They then knew that they had hooked him and thus they threatened to prosecute him for false statements (knowing that Logan Act prosecution would rightfully be seen as the witch hunt that this is and give the game away).

5. He plead guilty.

That seems like what happened. Now, I will note that it was a contemptible abuse of power for Yates and the FBI to target him on the basis of the Logan Act. Particularly on the heels of "no reasonable prosecutor" with regard to Hillary's server. THAT really is what should be focused on here. But not surprisingly, nothing to see here from the usually something to see here abuse-of-power crowd.

It seems he lied to the FBI about his conversations and then plead guilty to it. That's the simplest - and sanest - explanation. Which is not to say that something untoward didn't happen here.

To my eye:

1. Yates and the FBI threatened him with the ridiculous Logan Act.

2. He tried to talk his way out of it with no attorney present.

3. In so doing he told material lies about his perfectly legal discussions.

4. They then knew that they had hooked him and thus they threatened to prosecute him for false statements (knowing that Logan Act prosecution would rightfully be seen as the witch hunt that this is and give the game away).

5. He plead guilty.

That seems like what happened. Now, I will note that it was a contemptible abuse of power for Yates and the FBI to target him on the basis of the Logan Act. Particularly on the heels of "no reasonable prosecutor" with regard to Hillary's server. THAT really is what should be focused on here

All kinds of theories floating around. Someone should be compiling a list of them to stash alongside the preseason baseball predictions. Where is robinred when we need him?

Why was Flynn calling the Russians on the day that Obama announced the sanctions, assuring them not to worry about the sanctions? Does it make sense that this was the first time the Trump campaign and the Russians had discussed potential sanctions, and does it seem likely that Flynn was acting on his own initiative, without approval from the campaign?

Somehow I get the feeling that most of us here, even the Trump Toadies, would be able to survive 8 years in a job like that without being put under indictment.

You're being naive or stupid. Indictment has nothing to do with it. If there's an investigation that touches on you -- meaning a LEO or prosecutor might want to ask you questions -- you need a lawyer. And if you work at the upper levels -- or even just fetch coffee like George Papadopoulos -- they're going to want to talk to you.

No, it wouldn't. The Supreme Court has already ruled that foreign nationals who are not LPRs have no first amendment right to spend money on elections. Bluman v. FEC. That includes both campaign contributions and independent expenditures.

Uh ... they do if the expenditures are on themselves. Or are we now pretending the Financial Times, or the non-Americans on OTP, can't discuss American campaigns within the United States?

No, it's illegal. What's not illegal per the FEC is a foreigner providing volunteer services to a campaign, which is what Elton John did.

He didn't "volunteer" for anything. He provided valuable in-kind services.

It seems he lied to the FBI about his conversations and then plead guilty to it. That's the simplest - and sanest - explanation. Which is not to say that something untoward didn't happen here.

To my eye:

1. Yates and the FBI threatened him with the ridiculous Logan Act.

2. He tried to talk his way out of it with no attorney present.

3. In so doing he told material lies about his perfectly legal discussions.

4. They then knew that they had hooked him and thus they threatened to prosecute him for false statements (knowing that Logan Act prosecution would rightfully be seen as the witch hunt that this is and give the game away).

5. He plead guilty.

That seems like what happened. Now, I will note that it was a contemptible abuse of power for Yates and the FBI to target him on the basis of the Logan Act.

So, mostly money. I guess if you have a crappy or undignified or stupid monarch you wouldn't get the benefit. I just think that, say, if W had had to go to some old, respected king or queen and explain Iraq the outcome may have been different. But I'm probably idealizing.

Somehow I get the feeling that most of us here, even the Trump Toadies, would be able to survive 8 years in a job like that without being put under indictment.

You're being naive or stupid. Indictment has nothing to do with it. If there's an investigation that touches on you -- meaning a LEO or prosecutor might want to ask you questions -- you need a lawyer. And if you work at the upper levels -- or even just fetch coffee like George Papadopoulos -- they're going to want to talk to you.

You're neither naive nor stupid, but indictment has everything to do with the point I was making. I don't think that anyone here would've done what Papadopoulos did, though it's possible I may be overrating their integrity.

(Well, maybe Good Face might have, but I think his motivation would be more adventure-seeking than ideology.)

There’s an ideology in British-monarch movies where the ruler (Emily Blunt, Colin Firth, Helen Mirren, Ben Mendelsohn in Darkest Hour) is politically wise and savvy and steers their Prime Minister through the shoals ... I don’t doubt that the monarch is well-informed and that some may be smart, but I have to think the PM generally nods, says “yes sir/ma’am,” and does whatever the heck he or she wanted to anyway - the political forces of a parliamentary government vastly outweighing the opinion of some dynast.

I've been paying a little bit of attention to the Pennsylvania gerrymandering/redistricting case, in which the PA Supreme Court just issued its own map and said that will be in force for the 2018 election. (I think technically, the map came from a special master appointed by the court.) One of my side points of personal interest: my mother was born and raised in Pennsylvania. Rural, south-central PA, in the Appalachian ridge and valley zone. That's contained in District 13 on the new map. And yes, that does seem to be the single reddest district on the new map. (I've seen as a political reference the Appalachian region referred to as "Pennsyltucky.")

The company said it is giving $1,000 one-time bonuses to nearly 5,000 employees, will make $1 million in charitable contributions, and will contribute an additional $20 million to its employee pension plan because of federal tax reform.

I've been paying a little bit of attention to the Pennsylvania gerrymandering/redistricting case, in which the PA Supreme Court just issued its own map and said that will be in force for the 2018 election.

The new map looks vaguely reasonable. The old maps was so idiotic and obviously gerrymandered that only a ######## of Clapper-esque proportions could muster even a remote defense for it.

Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on the implications of the Special Counsel indictment of 13 Russians and the express statements of the Special Counsel and the Deputy Attorney General that there is no evidence of any American knowingly working with these Russians. This indictment addresses the core of Russian hacking and misinformation campaigns by the Russian government. The admission of no evidence of collusion is notable and significant. As I mentioned in the column, that does not mean that the investigation will not go forward, including pursuit of any collusion between the Russian and the Trump campaign. However, after a year and multiple pleas, none of the indictments have established the alleged nexus between the Trump campaign and the Russians.

There still remain a number of potential threats for the White House from new collusion evidence to financial-related crimes to new allegations stemming from the alleged payoff of former lovers. However, while Rep. Adam Schiff is still insisting that there is ample evidence of collusion and obstruction, the core (and original) allegation against Trump has moved little in terms of real evidence (at least evidence made public). Moreover, the evidence of the Russian campaign shows that it began in 2014 before Trump ran for president. It seemed to target the presumed victor: Hillary Clinton. However, when Trump ran, it targeted Trump. Both anti-Clinton and anti-Trump rallies were ultimately organized by the Russians to spread division. It was a curious effort since the country was already quite divided and the Russian-led protests paled in comparison to the massive anti-Trump rallies like the Women’s March or the continual protests over Hillary Clinton. The most serious problem was not the trolling or the organizing but the hacking.

9 months since Mueller was appointed and still nothing about Trump-Russia collusion. It's getting late late. But maybe something collusion-related will eventually pan out.

The British Monarchy is very profitable for Britain (partly because the crown leases land to the British government at very low rates, and partly because the monarchy generates a lot of tourism). The Canadian monarchy is essentially cost neutral - there're often claims it costs money, but they come entirely from costing things to the monarchy you'd have to pay for anyways, like receptions for visiting heads of state.

While the White House mourned the loss of life in Parkland, Fla., some aides privately acknowledged that the tragedy offered a breather from the political storm.

...“For everyone, it was a distraction or a reprieve,” said the White House official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to reflect internal conversations. “A lot of people here felt like it was a reprieve from seven or eight days of just getting pummeled.”

The official likened the brief political calm to the aftermath of the October shooting in Las Vegas that left 58 dead and hundreds more injured. That tragedy united White House aides and the country in their shared mourning for the victims and their families.

“But as we all know, sadly, when the coverage dies down a little bit, we’ll be back through the chaos,” the official said.

9 months since Mueller was appointed and still nothing about Trump-Russia collusion

And the investigation started six months earlier under Comey. If there is something there, you'd think its be coming out fairly soon. It's not like the WH is delaying things by pushing privilege claims to the Supreme Court.

Yes, there’s a new dating site catering specifically to Trump supporters, and they weren’t even clever enough to come up with the tagline “Make America Date Again.” The site is called Trump.Dating, and declares in its opening statement, “we believe that by matching patriotic and political viewpoints as a base foundation of the relationship, it will allow one to focus on what really matters”—like, say, complaining to the manager that there’s nowhere for you to sit when when you inevitably go on a date to Papa John’s.

The site explicitly excludes LGBTQ people—when signing up, it asks if you are a “straight woman” or a “straight man”—and although Trump.dating demurs from openly engaging in white supremacist rhetoric in its promotional copy, the all-white stock photo models, references to being on the “same team,” and splitting of hairs between “Scandinavian/Mediterranean/Eastern European/Western European” under the “ethnicity” part of the “about me” section make the implication clear enough. Once logged in as a “straight woman,” you will meet such eligible bachelors as GodEmperor2020, who believes Trump is a god as well as an emperor, Hot4Ivanka, who is hot for Ivanka, and a gentleman from Louisiana who just wants to “grab you by the heart.” (Really.)

And the investigation started six months earlier under Comey. If there is something there, you'd think its be coming out fairly soon. It's not like the WH is delaying things by pushing privilege claims to the Supreme Court.

Our analysis of special counsel probes in the modern era, starting in 1979, 1 puts Mueller’s investigation in select company for producing criminal charges at all — a majority of the investigations over the past four decades ended without charges being filed against anyone.

The total number of individuals charged in the investigation is now up to 18, 2 including an indictment and two guilty pleas from last fall. One of the defendants from last fall, Rick Gates, is reportedly finalizing a plea deal, which would signal that he’s ready to cooperate with the investigation.

Historically, major special counsel investigations that have led to charges have lasted for years, with indictments and guilty pleas trickling out as an inquiry gains momentum. So more charges seem likely to come.

But hey, it has been nine whole months, so Clapper is bored. Weird how he never ever got bored with the endlessly long Benghazi! or other Clinton investigations (which were different of course, because ... well for obvious reasons).

EDIT: To correct how long the investigation has been going on. My bad.

And the investigation started six months earlier under Comey. If there is something there, you'd think its be coming out fairly soon. It's not like the WH is delaying things by pushing privilege claims to the Supreme Court.

Shocking I know, but this is typical Clapper nonsense.

The Russia Investigation Is Moving Really Freaking Fast

If Bitter Mouse actually knew anything about the subject, he'd be aware that earlier special counsel investigations were in fact delayed by various procedural issues. Bill Clinton even claimed there was a Secret Service privilege that prevented the agents from testifying about his "activities". He lost on that, but it caused some delay. Nothing like that has happened on Russia-Russia-Russia, which has now gone on about a year and half, so one would think that if there is something there, it shouldn't take much longer. And, of course, Bitter Mouse once again points to Mueller indictments that show No Collusion, as somehow advancing the case for collusion. Next, he'll probably claim that indicting BrianBrianson would vindicate Mueller.

And of course, the object of the investigation is NOT to find collusion. It is (to paraphrase, based on my lay understanding) to uncover what went on regarding Russia, the election, and anything he runs into during the course of his investigation.

Weird how it always seems to get reduced down to "caught red handed colluding, or NOTHING!" by the Trumpkins.

Our analysis of special counsel probes in the modern era, starting in 1979, 1 puts Mueller’s investigation in select company for producing criminal charges at all — a majority of the investigations over the past four decades ended without charges being filed against anyone.

The total number of individuals charged in the investigation is now up to 18, 2 including an indictment and two guilty pleas from last fall. One of the defendants from last fall, Rick Gates, is reportedly finalizing a plea deal, which would signal that he’s ready to cooperate with the investigation.

Historically, major special counsel investigations that have led to charges have lasted for years, with indictments and guilty pleas trickling out as an inquiry gains momentum. So more charges seem likely to come.

This column was beside the point when it was posted here the first time. It's a silly column because it ignores the elephant in the room: the standard that was set by folks calling for or supporting the Mueller and related investigations was Trump-Russia collusion. So far that's a zero, and if it ends a zero a lot of folks are going to have egg on their faces. Not that they'll admit it but non-concessions won't fool the rest of us as to what happened.

And of course, the object of the investigation is NOT to find collusion. It is (to paraphrase, based on my lay understanding) to uncover what went on regarding Russia, the election, and anything he runs into during the course of his investigation.

You didn't need Mueller for the first two; something like the 9/11 commission would have gotten it done.

You did need Mueller for the last one, which is to indict people like Flynn for the crime of false statements about underlying conduct that was legal (after threatening him with bogus Logan Act violations). David used to understand that that sort of thing was an abuse of governmental power, but he's willing to cheer in approval here.

Weird how it always seems to get reduced down to "caught red handed colluding, or NOTHING!" by the Trumpkins.

That's the standard you and yours set, and no amount of revisionist history will change that. It's collusion or bust.

I'm sure there are nine good reasons why the previous nine are skewed and misleading.

But it's foolish to take "elapsed time" at face value. The premise isn't rock solid gold standard... like the press release from a corporation saying why it's "giving away" 1% of its tax cut in bonuses.

Weird how it always seems to get reduced down to "caught red handed colluding, or NOTHING!" by the Trumpkins.

It isn't weird at all. Not even the smoochiest love barnacle is stupid enough to bet against obstruction and money laundering.

That's the standard you and yours set, and no amount of revisionist history will change that. It's collusion or bust.

The British Monarchy is very profitable for Britain (partly because the crown leases land to the British government at very low rates

Well, this is "profit" in a technical sense. The Crown Estate is the property of the Monarchy by virtue of their role in the government. If we abolished the Monarchy we would abolish the Crown Estate. Another way of looking at it is that the royals get to skim 15% off the top of various public lands for their personal use.

and partly because the monarchy generates a lot of tourism)

It is my belief that the severed head of Elizabeth II would generate a lot of tourism.

I suspect an abolished monarchy wouldn't result in the appropriation of the Crown Estate, but rather having to pay full rent on their private lands. A violent revolution would very likely result in the pilfering of everything they couldn't carry on their backs as they fled, but you're describing the crown estates exactly backwards - they're publicly available property of the monarchs by virtue of their role in government, but if you took that away, they'd revert to their private owners. My job sometimes pays me to use my own car to drive places for work - but if I quit or were fired, they wouldn't get ownership of my car.

I suspect an abolished monarchy wouldn't result in the appropriation of the Crown Estate, but rather having to pay full rent on their private lands. A violent revolution would very likely result in the pilfering of everything they couldn't carry on their backs as they fled, but you're describing the crown estates exactly backwards - they're publicly available property of the monarchs by virtue of their role in government, but if you took that away, they'd revert to their private owners. My job sometimes pays me to use my own car to drive places for work - but if I quit or were fired, they wouldn't get ownership of my car.

The Crown Estate is the estate of the British Monarch, not the private property of the Windsors. They do have other extensive private property interests, but those are separate from the Crown Estate. For example, the Duchy of Lancaster, of Paradise Papers renown, is the private property of the Queen.

I agree that it's really a political question what would happen to the Crown Estate if the Monarchy were abolished, but if it happened the deposed private citizen royal family would certainly not retain the right to any gold or silver found in the UK, for example, or to escheated land. I suspect if it happened peacefully they would get to keep some crown property, in the British tradition of ham-handed compromise. You’d have to imagine a Britain in which the royals are widely unpopular though, for the Monarchy to be abolished, and so it’s difficult to say exactly what might happen.

On Friday, the office of California Secretary of State Alex Padilla posted updated voter registration statistics in advance of the state’s June 5 primary, and the data shows a continuation of the same bleak trend line for Golden State Republicans that we’ve written about in prior cycles: The GOP is simply hemorrhaging voters, both in raw numbers and as a percentage of registered voters.

Overall, just over 4.8 million Californians are currently registered as Republicans, representing 25.4 percent of the total electorate. That’s a loss of almost half a million voters—and a huge drop from the party’s 36 percent share—since the end of 1997, the first year for which statistics are available. And that drop comes despite the fact that California’s population has jumped from 32.5 million to 39.3 million over the last two decades.

A state with a proud history of Republicans is in danger of having "No party preference" pass them. Fortunately it is not like it is a large, wealthy, or important state or anything.

So I finally had a chance to look at the new map of Pennsylvania and it sure looks better. Democrats are happy and since Clapper has assured us all that gerrymandering is basically irrelevant I don't see any reason for anyone to complain about it.